Online Networks and Social Change

Social Commentary YouTube: Performance of civic agency in the 21st Century

Abstract

In the wake of summer 2020, the internet saw multiple movements, for instance, Black Lives Matter as well as #FreeBritney gain momentum. This paper asserts Social Commentary YouTube scene as a contemporary force for civic engagements and analyses its role in supporting social change relative to those movements. There is a definite growth of popularity for this genre with YouTubers such as D’Angelo Wallace, being regarded as respected and genuine commentators who employ thorough research methods to deliver critical content.  Consequently, this essay breaks down the dynamics that make this YouTube genre an active medium for collective change with regards to moderation, affective publics and the power given to the networked self. The research paper, henceforth, established the acts of citizen journalism present in the community as well as moderation and coveillance in relation to novel sousveillance techniques; it also explores the cornerstone that dispersed affective publics are for this genre and the ability of social commentators to centralize dissipated crowds into singular channels. In doing so, it also amplifies self-presentation and augments the collective identity to prompt users to change. In turn, this genre provides a mirror for online masses to reflect on digitally discussed issues and has emancipated individuals to act in real life.

Keywords: #onlinenetworks, #onlineactivism, #Youtube, #SocialCommentary, #community

Introduction

The summer of 2020 was one of digital protest in the United States (Rosenblatt, 2020) as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement surged digital spaces and masses organised online activities to support their counterparts who protested in the streets. Nonetheless, fighting social injustices predates the internet but given the wide-spanning reach of the internet, dispersed voices struggle to be heard. In the wake of the 21st Century, a younger, educated and increasingly technophile demographic (Raby, Caron, Théwissen-LeBlanc, Prioletta & Mitchell, 2017) seeks societal change with the tools it is equipped with. Consequently, Social Commentary channels are increasingly popular and respected among Generation Z wherein content creators exhibit their personal takes on pop-culture and societal headlines. Social commentary as a genre operates as an educational vehicle vis-à-vis a youthful audience yearning for civic engagement (Raby et al., 2017). There is, therefore, an absolute sense of coveillance as content creators as well as audiences become critical watchdogs amongst online and offline communities acting as invisible moderators (Matias, 2019), a definite impel by affective publics (Papacharissi, 2015) who are emotionally enmeshed with the cause they engage with acting as the backbone of those movements and the performance of a fundamentally imagined community (Anderson, 1991, as cited by Kavoura, 2014) as a networked public that is more confident in supporting causes, even when offline. This paper situates itself in the Online Networks and Social Change stream as it defends the Social Commentary genre on YouTube as a vector for societal change and it explores the dynamics of the community as well as dissects its catalytic role in pushing actions against injustices and thus, rightfully explores one aspect of Online Network i.e. Social Commentary YouTube and its direct correlation to Social Change through the instruments it provides for civic engagement. The Social Commentary scene on YouTube is a post-modernist agency of social change with an active and collective agenda, operating as socially aware moderators and amplifying the voice of dispersed affective publics, spurring heightened social activism campaigns online in imagined communities.

Moderation and Commentary

A substantial aspect of the YouTube commentary scene that determines its agency is the moderation particularity it represents. The internet encompasses an extensive ecosystem of applications and networks where individuals are incessantly creating, sharing, and remixing content (Asur and Huberman, 2010). Intensified consumption of digital media re-introduced the internet as a virtual third place (Soukup, 2006). With an extensive array of digital tools available, users re-designed online platforms as extensions of community-building and expression. Henceforth, due to the heightened social awareness of their audience, social commentators fulfill the role of social moderators online which transpires as “volunteer civic labour” (Matias, 2019, p.1) on this third space. This not only ties to civic duty but exposes the postmodernist agenda as users take it upon themselves to moderate. Moderation, as clarified by Gieryn (1983, as cited by Matias, 2019) is the daily implementation of “boundary work” (p.2) by volunteer individuals where boundary work is flows in accordance with the nuances of the internet but remains aligned with authoritative guidelines (Gieryn, 1983, as cited by Matias, 2019), in online terms, one speaks of community guidelines. However, with regards to supposedly present authority on virtual platforms, these agents fail to identify and counter malevolent content while inoffensive media gets taken down. The performance of postmodernist moderation comes into play as it increasingly doubts said authoritative reason and acts upon its own subjectivity (Fitzhugh & Leckie, Jr., 2001). Users become growingly sceptical of community guidelines’ viability and the safety net it claims to provide. Commentators, on the other hand, have awareness of the context and are trusted into making researched and truly objective claims with appropriate background. It must be acknowledged nonetheless that authoritative figures solely detain power to remove content and have to be alerted eventually. In turn, social commentators, and their audience regularly scrutinize the internet and recurringly, attempt to alarm authoritative figures online and offline. With an established platform, social commentary YouTubers can amplify and centralised those diffused opinions. This is very much relevant to predatory behaviours where in seemingly normal instances, viewers became increasingly wary of certain abusive behaviours and soon thereafter, social commentators picked up on the topic. 

Consequently, this exemplifies the notion of coveillance (Palmas, 2015) where both creators and viewers engage in peer-to-peer gazing and voluntarily take the responsibility as invisible moderators to gaze within their communities. As postmodernist creators and audiences are increasingly educated, they are not only aware of themselves but also mindful of their surroundings. Reporting of events is predominantly done through new sousveillance techniques (Mann, 2004, as cited by Ceccato, 2019) such as screenshots and screen-recordings. As creators and users are already participating in digital dialogues and consume digital media, they infiltrate and put on record suspicious happenings while retaining their anonymity; this is also relevant to offline circumstances where the eyewitnesses customarily record unusual occurring. This displays the postmodernist dynamics of moving from subservience to agency (Fitzhugh & Leckie, Jr., 2001). Recording and sharing is an effectual act of civic duty. This once again uncovers the mistrust for authority, this time offline, which is widely believed to be driven by disguised ideologies and leads to systemic oppression. Hence, sousveillance is received favourably as compared to surveillance (Ceccato, 2019) as it places all individuals on the same wavelength where the individual recording is not above the one being recorded and henceforth, is justified through its propagation. Sousveillance can be understood as the postmodernist response to surveillance as it illustrates the intersectionality (Hutcheon, 2013) of ‘traditional’ surveillance’s gaze with a modern peer-to-peer approach; it is community work for the collective. An observation of this sousveillance aspect is the George Floyd case where Floyd’s murder was caught on tape by onlookers which went viral; leading to widespread dissemination of incident which were increasingly commented on and led to massive protests amid pandemic restrictions. 

Parasocial Interactions and online activism

A second strand that justifies the Social Commentary scene on YouTube as a mechanism of civic engagement online is the nature of its dialogues. It sheds light on a parasocial dynamic (Giles, 2002). Parasocial interaction theory informs that viewers design an approachable persona in their mind through engagement with media, mirroring physical interpersonal relationships which are only sustained throughout the constant consumption of said media (Ballantine & Martin, 2005); the perceived bond is only heightened if one continuously consumes media as the relationship is inherently one-sided. The seemingly unilateral exchange, however, leaves space for more insightful debates and the information occupies the space of discussion. Social Commentary ultimately breaks down the sentiment of affective audience analytically and discusses how valid their audiences’ emotional reactions are, rationalising and amplifying them.  Papacharissi (2015, as cited by Lünenborg, 2019) identifies affective publics as “small, fragile and fluids” which are outcomes of the interweaving relationship between technology and human behaviour. On this statement, one must also acknowledge the fallacies of human behaviour and as commentators convey their viewpoint on issues, the audience can discuss the intricacies of their own thought-process. The behaviour relative to online social change is deeply rooted into the post-modernist practice of relativism (Tilley, 2001). Audiences are not only set into the relativist practice of doubting of ‘traditional’ institutions’ ideologies and the harmful moral judgements that hurt vulnerable groups but take time to question their own opinions. Despite the insightful take on discussions, urgency to act remains important and affective publics have immediate and compelling emotional responses which are embodied in different manners from online petitions on change.org to educational fundraising livestreams on YouTube as was the case for BLM protests.

Another essential point alludes to the collaborative nature of storytelling within Social commentary as a medium. It is common for audiences to tag content creators in posts or send them Instagram posts for example, to provide material for commentary. Thus, with Social Commentary, audience are actively participating in this storytelling process to bring about change as a collective. According to Papacharissi (2015), storytelling is the undeviating method of originating engagement and sharing stories of individuals humanizes their messages instantly. Consequently, audiences will share experiences and input which made a difference for trans rights activists. Vivienne (2011) unravels the initial lack of visibility for trans rights activism and the inability for transgender individuals to share their stories but with participatory culture, their narratives find their way on public spaces and are distinguishable. It needs to be recognized that any movement advances for the creation of safer society and commentators will discuss an array of issues, irrespective of whether they identify with it as part of the agenda towards a safer environment. The #MeToo movement and the trans rights movement, despite their differences, inherently want to rid society of silencing and oppressive systems. A parallel can be found in terms of citizen journalism (Antony & Thomas, 2010), on both content creators’ and viewers’ sides that is observed here but noticeably, commentators are subjective speakers; not only do they deliver information and educate, but they affirm their stance and actively seek solutions as they participate in the public dialogues which is meant to serves towards societal ameliorations (Antony & Thomas, 2010). This is relativist practice as commentators give their take on issues, informed by their experiences but ties it with research and investigation. They subsequently inform and correct their opinions before delivery and are not absolute in nature. This connection is relevant as it informs on the case of the #FreeBritney movement where fans of American entertainer, Britney Spears became increasingly concerned and garnered numerous accounts of the performers’ obstacles due her father’s long-spanning conservatorship (Spanos, 2021). Eventually, the matter was picked up on by social commentary youtubers such as D’Angelo Wallace and SL04N who operate with thorough research and insightful subjective judgement. According to fans, her behaviour became increasingly suspicious as fans realised the limits imposed on her such as her inability to drive her own car (Spanos, 2021). Through the early 2000s, audiences were in favour of the conservatorship due Spears’ erratic behaviour, but the internet became growingly wary as Spears slowly disappeared from the public eye and cancelled much awaited shows of hers.

Self-presentation in response to civic engagement

A third element substantiates social commentary YouTube is the multiplicity it allows for the self-presentation in response to civic engagement and the transition it enables from an imagined community (Phillips, 2002) to very real actions and protests. Yang (2009) identifies cultural activism as “concern over values, morality, lifestyles, and identities” (p.33) which are inherently collective; movements advance for something bigger than individuals and focus on fashioning a better future. Henceforth, social commentary YouTube grants viewers with a space to acknowledge the saliency of their own identities relative to social advocacy; distinguishing and asserting the collective identity which in turn heightens the need for social change. Saliency is compartmentalisation of multiple versions of the self that are expressed under specific circumstances (Morris, 2013) and in turn, the YouTube commentary community asserts the needs for collective change and in turn, raises the communal self in this hierarchy. Individuals forget their initial inhibitions and get involved publicly despite oppositions from their circle due to the controversial nature of civic engagement. Consequently, the audience moves from their initial imagined cocoon to a much real setting for protests, from hashtags to actual banners as the BLM and #FreeBritney movement monopolised both the internet and the physical crowds. Community members who were willing to take actions were given alternative methods of protesting and supporting those present in pacific protest; there was an ascent in fundraiser livestreams on YouTube which served as support for protesters but also for victims to voice out and an educational vehicle for the public to understand the movement as well as their goal. The most recent account of those activities was in the wake of mass awareness against Asian-American discriminatory crimes and provides visibility for those affected.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper affirms the role of Social Commentary YouTubers and in turn, their community as a powerful medium for social advocacy online and offline. Taking on its role as an omniscient figure of digital moderation equipped with the relevant tools to collect evidence and accordingly report occurrences and its significance relative to affective publics whose voices are amplified their concerns and amplified as a collective. The final reasoning is its ability to focus on the collective identity and shift self-presentation towards acting for the greater good in the public sphere. The analysis undertaken throughout the above discussion has potential limitations. This exhibit takes on broad research databases on YouTube and users’ performance on the video-sharing platform with respect to identity and online activism but there is a definite lack of scholarly analysis on the dynamics of Social Commentary content as it is a genre in expansion, gaining massive popularity among a young and socially aware demographic. Consequently, this constitutes an area for further research to explore the relevance of this genre relative to its audience as well as the actions it prompts viewers, online and offline. Social commentary YouTube channels as mediums of citizen journalism is also a prospective area for further research as it is embedded into informed subjective delivery. Thus, research on the demand for divulgation of one’s attitude toward a specific cause might be a subject for potential research

Reference List

Antony, M. G. & Thomas, R. J. (2010). ‘This is citizen journalism at its finest’: YouTube and the public sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident. New Media & Society, 12(8), 1280-1296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810362492

Asur, S. & Huberman, B. A. (2010, August 31). Predicting the Future With Social Media.  2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology. Toronto, Canada. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.5699.pdf

Ballantine, P. W. & Martin, B.A.S. (2005). Forming parasocial relationships in online communities. Advances in consumer research, 32, 197-201. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v32/acr_vol32_83.pdf

Ceccato, V. (2019). Eyes and Apps on the Streets: From Surveillance to Sousveillance Using Smartphones. Criminal Justice Review, 44, 24-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016818818696

 Fitzhugh, M. L. & Leckie, Jr, W. H. (2001). Agency, Postmodernism, and the Causes of Change. History and Theory, 40(4), 59-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/0018-2656.00182

Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial Interaction: A Review of the Literature and a Model for Future Research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279-305. https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04\

Hutcheon, L. (2013). Postmodernism. In S. Malpas & P. Wake (Eds.), The Routledge Companion To Critical Theory (1 eds., pp. 115-126). Routledge.  https://ap01-a.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/delivery/61CUR_INST/12183292990001951

Kavoura, A. (2014, September 5-9). Social media, online imagined communities and communication research. 3rd International Conference on Integrated Information (IC-ININFO), Prague, Czech Republic. http://history.icininfo.net/2013/

Lünenborg, M. (2019). Affective Publics. In J. Siaby & C. von Scheve (Ed.), Affective Societies – Key Concepts (pp. 319-329). Routledge. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336321545_Affective_Publics

Matias, J. N. (2019). The Civic Labor of Volunteer Moderators Online. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119836778

Morris, R. C. (2013). Identity Salience and Identity Importance in Identity Theory. Current Research in Social Psychology, 21(8), 23-36. https://crisp.org.uiowa.edu/sites/crisp.org.uiowa.edu/files/2020-04/21.8.pdf

Palmas, K. (2015).  Inauthentically Intense: Coveillance and Consumer Culture among Speedsurfers. Surveillance & Society, 13(3/4), 487-496. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v13i3/4.5424

Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics and structures of storytelling: sentiment, events and mediality. Information, Communication & Society,19(3), 307-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109697

Phillips, T. (2002). Imagined Communities and Self-Identity: An Exploratory Quantitative Analysis. Sociology, 36(3), 597-617. https://www-jstor-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stable/42856431?sid=primo#metadata_info_tab_contents

Raby, R., Caron, C., Théwissen-LeBlanc, S., Prioletta, I. & Mitchell, C. (2018).  Vlogging on YouTube: the online, political engagement of young Canadians advocating for social change. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(4), 495-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2017.1394995

Rosenblatt, K. (2020, September). A summer of digital protest: How 2020 became the summer of activism both online and offline. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/summer-digital-protest-how-2020-became-summer-activism-both-online-n1241001

Soukup, C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building Oldenburg’s great good places on the world wide web. New Media & Society, 8(3), 421-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061953

Spanos, B. (2021, February 8). #FreeBritney: Understanding the Fan-led Britney Spears Movement. Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/freebritney-britney-spears-legal-829246/

Tilley, J. J. (2001). Cultural Relativism. Human Rights Quarterly 22(2), 501–47. https://philarchive.org/archive/TILCR

Vivienne, S. (2011). Trans Digital Storytelling: Everyday Activism, Mutable Identity and the Problem of Visibility. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 7(1), 43-54. https://dspace2.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2328/36186/Vivienne_Trans_AM2011.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=

Yang, G. (2009). Online activism. Journal of Democracy, 20(3), 33-36. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.0.0094

21 thoughts on “Social Commentary YouTube: Performance of civic agency in the 21st Century

  1. Hi Elodie,

    Your paper was super interesting to read, you bring up a lot of great examples. It was refreshing to see a paper on YouTube as many papers focus around the typical Instagram, Tik Tok and Facebook platforms.

    When you mention moderation of content by the users, it reminds me of a similar occurrence with Wikipedia, where moderation falls largely into the hands of the users. In these cases we often see a small group of these users come together to perform coveillance by viewing and regulating content for the masses, while others do smaller groundwork that accumulate into a large impact on the whole.

    It is interesting to see how content from different platforms all merge together and cross over in an ephemeral way. Content that originated on Instagram might end up in a Tweet on twitter, or in a reaction video on YouTube.

    Extremely well researched paper, I learnt a couple of new words 😂! Thanks for bringing this topic to my attention.

    – Lily

  2. Hi Elodie.

    I think your paper really highlights how powerful Youtube can be as a platform capable of contributing to collective change. At one point you reference the trans community, and how trans narratives are increasingly more accessible on social media platforms like Youtube. This is the power of the internet, non-dominant narratives can be seen and heard on a mass scale. I love that you comment on how social movements are important talking points for social commentators regardless of if they are personally a part of the oppressed community or not. Any oppressive systems need to be (and are) discussed by the public, as the overall goal for a safer and more cohesive society for all forms the basis of people’s motivations to partake in discourse surrounding social injustices.

    Thanks for sharing your paper, it really resonated with me. If you’re interested in diving deeper into the importance of online trans communities, my paper is here:

    https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2021/2021/04/25/social-media-as-a-tool-for-transgender-community-building/

    1. Hi Silas,

      thank you for reaching for my paper and I am glad that you enjoyed the arguments I explored throughout my discussion!

      I shall take a look at your paper as well; it will be an opportunity for me to learn more about the topic!

      Cheers!

  3. Hi Elodie!

    Although prior to reading this, I was unaware of the YouTubers mentioned but you made your argument very clear and definitely strengthened it through these examples. I liked how you communicated the fact that the activist on this third space could be anyone whilst viewing it from a negative perspective as this makes way for a strong controversial debate with readers.

    Becoming aware that these young demographics are looking for new innovative way to express their opinions and ‘woke’ views, it is easier to understand why they engage on these platforms as frequently as they do – to become a part of/belong to something.
    However, I agree with the thought that these injustice opinions they share may become extreme/offensive and it could be beneficial to discover/research further too.

    ‘Online citizen journalism’ may be a term to look into as well as it explores these points and specifically how news outlets rely on this new form of journalism to not only capture their young audience but keep up-to-date on recent news.

    Furthermore, I liked reading about YouTube as an online networking platform as it has been unlike any other paper I have read thus far. I find it interesting that you addressed this activism as ‘volunteered labour’ as it provides a different perspective whilst providing an insightful description of the specific activist behaviour on these third spaces. It would be interesting to get your view on whether or not you think YouTube puts too much trust and responsibility in their users, and if so, do you believe that YouTube should strengthen their authority or do you think that this would in return discourage individuals’ voices?

    I also enjoyed reading about your comparison to offline records where the accused is eye-witnessed by others in-person as this can be compare authority figures as well; police vs other users online. I believe that the difference between the two authorities may lead to the failure of online activism as online users are more likely to engage in offensive commentary due to anonymous connections and lack of sufficient consequences (in authority/threats).

    Overall, really good read, thank you.

    – Kira

    1. Hi Kira,

      thank you very much for your kind words and I’m glad that you enjoyed the discussion I presented!

      Pertaining to the questions you raised, personally I see the freedom YouTube has given its audience as fairly new. YouTube is only 16 years old and as a community, we are continuously discovering new ways communicating ideas on the platform thus it’s not too much since we didn’t have it 20 years ago.

      I believe the community and how liberated it is on there is what makes YouTube what it is. Considering media used to be a passive, one-way exchange where the audience could not express their opinions in response, we now have a platform to be vocal and I believe if YouTube tried to enforce its ‘authority’ , it would discourage individuals and the platform would lose its appeal altogether.

      I believe this is a way of creating a dialogue instead of assimilating what we are being fed. We can discuss, as a community and share opinions. The is a definite shift in dynamics in relation to media consumption.

      Of course, not all individuals are well-meaning and can be trusted with the platform but even YouTube authorities seem to overlook those creators and it comes back to mass reporting by viewers to get their accounts taken down. So I believe, people retaining control over those aspects are beneficial.

      I hope this answered your questions!

  4. Hello Elodie,

    Your conference paper embraces a topic that until now I had not really indulged in myself. Your paper is very impressive, you can see from your writings that you have researched your topic extensively and your expression and presentation is exquisite. You make your points quite clear and concise and portray Social Commentary YouTube as an essential tool in enacting social change. The examples you use of the Black Lives Matter movement and Free Britney movement reiterate your points perfectly and your paper flows beautifully.
    After reading your paper Elodie I agree with your sentiments regarding Social Commentary YouTube and the important role it plays in allowing users to upload content to share important information, shine a light on important issues and instil community awareness.
    Thank you Elodie for an extremely informative paper.

    Regards,
    Bernie.

    1. Hello Bernie,

      Thank you for your kind comments and I am glad that it was an eye-opening paper for you.

      Regards,
      Elodie

  5. Hello Elodie, your paper is so insightful. I have enjoyed reading it. You have clearly delineate about the relationship and bonding forming between commentators and the audience, and is reflected in the real world. The way you have written your paper, depicts the relationship between the audience and commentators as a form of ‘wave’, where they procure changes together. It is true creators perceive their audience as weak and fragile sometimes, however do you think the audience wary the desired purpose of their creators?

    Best,
    Mageswari

    You may check out my paper also, https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2021/2021/04/26/instagram-a-virtual-platform-in-crafting-the-well-being-of-young-women/?fbclid=IwAR1fSYZHxfM8qprVO7y6Nq_AbLFlk8vQyRwD6UyhJJhNxOWsCT9EkP8ZaDo#comment-1877

    1. Hi Mageswari,

      thanks for commenting!
      I believe most viewers try to approach each social commentary YouTuber with an open-mind. In a lot of cases, they might not agree fully with the arguments presented or disagree altogether but this is the purpose of videos. We discuss and explore each other’s ideas.

      With knowledge of the audience, I believe they are mostly educated individuals who will catch on these YouTubers talking about a topic because it is trending. It is very easy to notice if you’ve been around for a while.

      Considering a lot of YouTubers seem to be good actors, insincerity can be sensed and these communities are also in a critical state of mind, even with their more cherished creators and they will point out things they think are inconsistent, for instance.

      As I mention, the community actively re-evaluates itself at all times and faults will be pointed. So genuine mistrust is not really present but audiences aren’t following creators blindly either.

      Thank you again for commenting and I hope this answers you question! I shall go through your paper soon.

  6. Hi Elodie,
    I wondered what would be your take on moderators allowing the spread of misinformation. In the case of George Floyd a video was used which then brought about the protests etc before the case was thoroughly investigated. There were many arguments that Floyd died of an overdose, this notion has now been dismissed as the policeman has been proven guilty. However, what if misinformation and outside pressure from protesters affected the trial and ended up wrongly condemning the policeman?

    Congratulations on the paper it was very good!

    1. Hi Luc,

      thank you for this question, it definitely made me ponder over the subject!

      Although I’m not well-versed in matters of law, I believe the justice system does its best to frame criminals but we all acknowledge the loopholes of the law sometimes.

      I think, despite the responsibility that comes with being a moderator, they are still human and in the moment of action, they may be overwhelmed with their own personal opinions. As I mention in my paper, people nowadays are more vocal about their stands on social issues and in the moment, upon seeing a video for instance, one declares it is okay to let it through for awareness and information. People need to see what is happening but this doesn’t excuse their actions. This gives us only context as to why this has gone viral and fake content are mostly unidentifiable on-sight so by the time one claims it is fake , it has been shared around the world.

      From my recollection, I believe a toxicology report ruled the theory of the overdose, even though he had traces of drugs in his system at the time of his death. From the videos, he didn’t display the classic signs of an overdose at the time as experts commented in court.

      Concerning the effect of misinformation and outside pressure on trials, if it is indeed the case here, this is not the first time it has happened either. There are many counts of people being wrongly accused and even put on death row due to law enforcements’ incompetency. I know court officials try to maintain impartiality for the most part but the final decision is up to judges and if they have been influenced in the process, it is a responsibility that they should take, don’t you think? I think further shows how the justice system might have hidden agendas, like appealing to certain public views in fear of destructive repercussions instead of finding the truth.

      I don’t think we can blame people for expressing disdain for someone who they deem are harmful to their community.

      I hope this answers your question, this was a tough one but thank you for commenting and raising this point.

  7. Hi Elodie!

    Enjoyed reading your paper. It really helped me deepen my understanding of how social media can enable social change, with its focus on a specific platform. You mention how commentators on YouTube form relationships with their audiences akin to interpersonal relationships in the real world, which facilitates a kind of community engagement. I found it fascinating as my paper also argues something along the lines of social media enabling community formation.

    On the other hand, do you think these relationships that commentators form are more as influencers, similar to a celebrity-audience dynamic, or is it more intimate? What are your thoughts?

    1. Hi Anurag,

      thanks for your comment!

      Thank you for this very intriguing question!

      From my experience, I think it is a far more intimate experience for the creators and their audiences.

      The first intent of voicing out to the public was not grow a following. It is about civic duty and voicing out concerns they have about current societal situations. People can also share their past experiences for awareness and give more insight of issues that may not touch a majority.

      But the celebrity-audience dynamic does come into play when the content creator gains a lot of followers and is far more scrutinized than before. They become a figure, almost revered for their insightful takes on those subjects.

      The dynamic is not performative in this genre, however; creators do not owe consistent performances and can take breaks which their audiences understand.

      Basically, a strictly celebrity-audience dynamic would imply a disconnect between creators and audiences but this isn’t the case. Despite the virtual nature, they create this cocoon for tolerant discussion and introspection; there are just more people watching now.

      I hope my insights are aligned with your questions and thank you again for commenting.

  8. Hi Elodie,

    What an interesting read! Your paper contains a lot of great arguments and researches which makes your paper super informative and has a great flow of ideas. I especially enjoyed reading your paragraph on “Parasocial Interactions and online activism.”
    It is important to dive into the ideas you mentioned since I agree that YouTube is a great tool that allows self-presentation in relationship with civic activism and inside an imagined community.
    However, what do you think of fake news which can lead to misunderstanding and confusion inside of these communities? Do you think that there are some factors that make people consider indicative of fake news?
    Once more I will say that I enjoyed your paper and well done!

    I encourage you to read my paper which also focuses on YouTube but more specifically on Black Natural Hair communities on YouTube. the link is below:
    https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2021/2021/04/26/black-natural-hair-vloggers-on-youtube-are-empowering-their-audiences-by-encouraging-them-to-embrace-their-black-identity/#comment-1644

    1. Hi Camille,

      thank you so much for your comment! I’m glad you enjoyed the paper.

      To respond to your question, I understand where you’re coming from since the internet is vast space with news of all sorts. Misunderstandings are bound to happen when it comes to such issues with third-parties making bold claims with enough shock value to attract attention.

      The Social Commentary Scene on YouTube for the most part has tried to refrain from doing what drama channels do. Drama channels will take on a topic instantly if it is trending and will take a step back after the ‘evidence’ was proven to be fake.

      The sole fact of claiming something without proof is not enough; there are online trolls everywhere and screenshots can be easily manipulated.

      Social Commentary channels, for the most part, try to evaluate the situation from a distance and alleges to the claims. It also sheds light on the issues themselves instead of specifically attacking someone. Talking on one sexual assault case for instance is also creating awareness for all victims and bringing the discussion on a public sphere.

      I hope this answers your question.
      Thank you again for responding and I look forward to reading your paper as well.

  9. Hi Elodie,
    I really enjoyed reading your paper and the aspect of community online really reflect the shift in power to the public. Citizen journalism can be defined as a by-product of participatory culture online. However, too much power given to the public poses a problem to the social harmony. Do you think there should be a balance in power between public and professional?

    My paper explore the aspects how amateurism and professionalism clash with each other which is related to your topic of citizen journalism. I would be happy if you could check it out: https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2021/2021/04/26/amateurism-vs-professionalism-who-will-prevail-in-the-digital-era/

    Hope to hear from you soon.

    1. Hi Ignesh,

      Thank you for commenting!

      Your perspective is very interesting and I agree with your concerns about too much power given to the public.

      I see the rise in popularity in amateur content, the commentary scene on YouTube for example, as a response to the impression that journalism does not work to help society.

      This sentiment is popular and people took it upon themselves to create more meaningful content.

      I think there should be a balance between amateurs and professionals; we need qualified individuals who have thoroughly studied to be in their field. The variable here is the good intent which the public fails to see in professionals in relation to societal issues.

      As a result, in a culture where we have tools to create and platforms to bring awareness, people will be more adamant to push their concerns.

      Taking all this into account, professionals are the ones who know their field better and I believe we are in a transition where professionals can see what audiences expect of them while having internal negotiations about what is appropriate or not. So I am hopeful that the balance will be restored in time.

      I hope this answers your question. Thank you again for your comment, it was a very thought-provoking question! I look forward to reading your paper!

  10. Hey Elodie,
    That was really well written. I was just wondering if you think YouTube’s algorithm may be creating an echo chamber for it’s users.
    In days of yor, many ideals and opinions were discussed in public, and in doing so allowed everyone to broaden their own opinions and test their thoughts by discourse. What I find now with YT is that I will only see content that aligns with my views, which means there could be other views out there that are valid that I will never hear.

    I think this might be a problem for all sides of the spectrum, how do you know you are holding onto incorrect beliefs when you only see people that agree with you already. Perhaps YT should implement a button that removes all recommended videos or perhaps if you are constantly searching a topic, show videos from another perspective or opinion.

    Anyway, thanks for your comments earlier.

    1. Hi Jorell,

      Thank you for reaching out to my paper!

      I do agree with you on the echo chamber effect that the YouTube algorithm creates. The YouTube algorithm’s first intent was definitely to cater to your specific interests but indeed, when it comes to serious topics, we cannot ignore other individuals’ stories and opinions which could give us a much broader perspective of the issue.

      On another note, I think that the echo chamber provides a cocoon where serious and personal topics are recommended to people who care. This effect isn’t inherently bad because sometimes people with different opinions come across videos they disagree with and people are downright fighting to make a point. It’s even worse with online trolls. The whole point of the video is lost.

      I think your idea is interesting; having a section for related videos about the same subject that takes us to different channels. We definitely need more diversity in terms of perspectives and reaching a middle ground with other people. Communication is key.

      Thank you for raising this point!

      Cheers!

  11. Hi Elodie,
    This is Wen. What you have argued is really impressive and it pointed out the change of the way people viewing problem in an online environment. I totally agree with the point stated that social commentary can have a significant impact on civic engagement which will influence the protest activities, since social media provides a place for people to organize protest as by using social media, it allows the contents and messages to reach more audiences who have the same interest. Do you think that YouTube will be used for early social-education for children in the future? Since I think it is necessary for children to have a better understanding of how the online world works.
    I talked about how people use social media as a medium in upholding civl rights, I also discussed BLM as a background, feel free to discuss my paper. Thank you!

    1. Hi Wen,
      Thank you for commenting and I am glad that you enjoyed my paper!

      To answer your question, yes! I think YouTube could be an amazing tool for early social-education for children in the future. It holds a lot of potential for the learning environment and it is far more engaging for children than a textbook.
      I agree with your point that children should have a grasp of the online world at an early age, especially future generations, who unlike us, will be growing in a richer virtual space.
      YouTube is not what it was 10 years ago and it’s not always a positive experience. So now that we have seen what the online world entails, the least we could do is provide education which will promote a safer and memorable experience online for younger internet users.

      Thank you again and I look forward to discussing your paper!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *